prepare_native_stake_deactivate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds critical details: the one-epoch cooldown, no rewards during deactivation, requirement for durable nonce, same Ledger-blind-sign treatment as delegate, and that the on-chain program reverts if already deactivating but the simulation gate catches it. These enrich the agent's understanding significantly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is front-loaded with the core action, then adds essential details in concise sentences. Every sentence provides value (timeline, prerequisites, error handling, next steps). No fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of staking deactivation (timing, authority, nonce, sibling tools), the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites, behavior, failure modes, and subsequent step. No output schema exists, but the tool's output (unsigned tx) is implied and sufficient. The description is complete for agent decision-making.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameter descriptions already explain the purpose and constraints. The description repeats some of that information but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the verb 'Build an unsigned native-stake deactivate tx' and the resource (native stake deactivation). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing prepare_native_stake_withdraw for the next step and comparing Ledger handling to prepare_native_stake_delegate. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description provides explicit guidance: use when stake is active and not already deactivating/inactive; prerequisites (wallet must be staker authority, durable nonce required); when not to use (already deactivating leads to revert, caught by simulation). It explicitly mentions the alternative tool to use after cooldown (prepare_native_stake_withdraw).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.